July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5471 

bill within its four corners. I thought 

that was why we sought the sequential 

referral, in order to consider and improve the bill where we could. 

I worked with Senator FEINSTEIN, the 

chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. We came to an understanding 

and she supported the substitute 

amendment I offered to shorten the 

sunset and add more accountability 

and oversight protections. I thank her 

for that. I am always willing to work 

with the Senator from California, who 

is so diligent in her efforts on the Intelligence Committee. We reached a 

good compromise and agreement. 

I had circulated the core of my 

amendment, to shorten the sunset, 

back on July 11, before the bill was to 

be considered. At the request of Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, the bill was held over. I protected their right to do so under our 

rules. We finally proceeded to the bill 

last Thursday, July 19. Despite the 

delay, no Republicans spoke to me 

about any potential amendments to 

the bill. 

Instead, the evening before the delayed markup, for the first time, Republican offices circulated scores of 

amendments. It is unfortunate that 

there have been mischaracterizations 

of our committee process. Contrary to 

the statements of some on the other 

side, no one was precluded from offering an amendment. In fact, a number 

were offered by Republican Senators. 

The committee proceeded to vote on 

Senator KYL’s amendment, for example, to create a new material support of 

terrorism offense in title 18, and rejected it after Senator FEINSTEIN argued against including it on this important measure, despite her support 

for the substance of the amendment. 

We proceeded to vote on Senator LEE’s 

amendment, which was about FISA 

surveillance, and it, too, was defeated. 

So despite the misstatements to the 

contrary, the committee proceeded to 

consider and reject amendments. 

There came a point during our initial 

2-hour markup when Senator FEINSTEIN

urged that amendments about matters 

not involving the FISA Amendments 

Act extension be considered on other 

vehicles at other times, and moved to 

table amendments. Those motions prevailed. We have had such motions before and sometimes they succeed. 

After 2 hours, as Republican Senators 

left, we lost a quorum and had to reconvene to vote on reporting the bill as 

amended to the Senate. I thank those 

Senators from both sides of the aisle 

who reconvened. The committee voted 

to report the measure and was able to 

do so within the short timeframe of our 

sequential referral. 

The FISA Amendments Act legislation is a top priority of the administration and our intelligence community. 

We have all acknowledged that. The 

ranking member acknowledged that it 

is ‘‘a program vital to our national security.’’ A number of Republicans proclaimed last week that they were ready 

to expedite consideration of the measure and would not offer amendments. 

Then, when the committee adopted the 

June 2015 sunset date instead of one of 

the 2017 dates in other versions of the 

bill, they changed position and sought 

to use it as a vehicle for extraneous 

matters and to offer a number of riders 

to it that were rejected. I do not understand that logic and why the change in 

the sunset date or the addition of oversight provisions should change the 

character of the bill or its importance 

to our national security. The bill is 

needed to continue the authority to 

conduct electronic surveillance of nonU.S. persons overseas under certain 

procedures approved by the FISA 

Court. 

The Justice Department and DNI 

have told us: 

[It] is vital in keeping the Nation safe. It 

provides information about the plans and 

identities of terrorists, allowing us to 

glimpse inside terrorist organizations and 

obtain information about how those groups 

function and receive support. In addition, it 

lets us collect information about the intentions and capabilities of weapons 

proliferators and other foreign adversaries 

who threaten the United States. Failure to 

reauthorize Section 702 would result in a loss 

of significant intelligence and impede the 

ability of the intelligence community to respond quickly to new threats and intelligence opportunities. 

The committee agreed with Senator 

FEINSTEIN when she asked us not to 

open the bill up to ‘‘extraneous amendments.’’ As it was, the committee considered half a dozen amendments offered by Republican Senators. I appreciated Senator KYL volunteering to 

have his staff convene a meeting to 

consider amendments to our terrorist 

statutes that he does not think will be 

controversial. 

Notably, the vast majority of the 

amendments filed and offered by the 

Republicans would not have changed or 

added a single word to either the underlying bill or the underlying statute. 

Senator LEE’s amendment was the only 

Republican amendment that dealt in 

any way with the relevant FISA authorities. That amendment received an 

up-or-down vote by the committee, and 

most Republican members voted 

against it. 

Once it became clear that the Republican Senators intended to offer a series of extraneous amendments, Senator FEINSTEIN moved to table amendments that were not germane to her 

bill. She has that right. I protect the 

rights of all members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats. 

Four such amendments were tabled, 

but notably they were tabled by a vote 

of the full committee, not simply 

through a ruling by the chairman or 

my making up rules, as Republican 

chairmen have done in the past. Indeed, although a motion to table is 

typically not subject to debate, I asked 

the committee’s indulgence to permit 

such discussion. No Senator was cut off 

from offering amendments or engaging 

in debate. 

It is telling that the two amendments that Senator GRASSLEY offered 

during the committee’s consideration 

of the FISA Amendments Act had absolutely no connection whatsoever with 

the provisions of title VII of FISA. The 

first amendment that Senator GRASSLEY offered would have added the death 

penalty as a punishment to certain 

crimes involving weapons of mass destruction. The second amendment that 

he offered would have required a Department of Justice Inspector General 

audit of criminal wiretap applications 

from 2009 to 2010. This amendment may 

be important to Senator GRASSLEY in 

the context of the Fast and Furious 

controversy, but it certainly is not relevant to the FISA Amendments Act. 

Senator FEINSTEIN moved to table both 

amendments and the motion carried 

each time. 

Let us be accurate, Republican members of the committee were afforded 

the opportunity to offer amendments, 

even ones outside the scope of the legislation. The committee has a process, 

and we followed that process. 

I understand that Republican Senators are disappointed that they were 

not able to use the FISA Amendments 

Act legislation as a vehicle to carry 

other legislation. I am disappointed 

that, as with so many good bills the 

committee has reported, there was so 

little Republican support for a measure 

that everyone concedes is vital to our 

national security. Like the Violence 

Against Women Reauthorization Act, 

which received no Republican vote on 

this committee; and the Second Chance 

Act, which received no Republican 

votes on this committee after a number of Republican amendments were 

considered and even though it had been 

a program strongly supported by Republicans historically; the FISA 

Amendments Act Sunsets Extension 

Act was not supported by a single Republican Senator on this committee. 

Let me remind Senators, again, that 

the Director of National Intelligence 

and the Attorney General have emphasized that the reauthorization of the 

FISA Amendments Act is the intelligence community’s ‘‘top legislative 

priority.’’ I encourage any Senator who 

has not yet done so to review the classified information that the administration has provided to Congress about 

the implementation of the FISA 

Amendments Act. This is a measure 

that requires serious debate and swift 

action not partisan bickering or baseless accusations. I sincerely hope that 

we can set aside the election year posturing and press ahead with consideration of this important national security measure. The American people deserve no less. 

f 

FAA SUNSETS EXTENSION ACT 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, on 

July 19, the Judiciary Committee considered legislation to reauthorize the 

title VII provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These surveillance authorities are vital to our 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5472 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

national security, and it is imperative 

that they be reauthorized before they 

expire at the end of this year. The reauthorization bill is narrow in scope, 

and many amendments were proposed 

at the committee markup that had little or nothing to do with the reauthorization of FISA. As I stated during the 

markup, I may have supported or been 

open to working out a compromise on 

several of the amendments in other 

contexts. However, I voted in opposition to all of the extraneous amendments offered because I felt their adoption would threaten the timely passage 

of the FISA reauthorization bill. That 

is not a risk I was willing to take. 

In particular, as for Senator KYL’s 

amendment to criminalize certain behavior that would reward past terrorist 

acts and Senator GRASSLEY’s amendment to impose the death penalty on 

terrorists who use weapons of mass destruction, I want to make clear that I 

strongly oppose the funding of terrorism and I believe that terrorists 

should be subject to the death penalty. 

I support the objectives of both of 

these amendments, but I was concerned 

that their adoption by the committee 

could delay or prevent passage of the 

FISA reauthorization bill. I am prepared to work with Senator KYL and 

Senator GRASSLEY to address these important issues at a more appropriate 

time going forward. 

I hope that these amendments and 

others are raised in the appropriate 

context so they can be adequately addressed. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO COLONEL PAUL W. 

BRICKER 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our men 

and women in uniform sacrifice much 

to keep our Nation strong and free. 

They are well-trained, extraordinarily 

capable and are some of our country’s 

best and brightest. It is with this in 

mind that I recognize COL Paul W. 

Bricker as he retires from the United 

States Army this week. Colonel Bricker has served our country in uniform 

for more than a quarter of a century, 

and I am honored to congratulate him 

on a long and distinguished military 

career. 

COL Paul W. Bricker has served as 

the Chief of the Army’s Senate Liaison 

Division since May 2011. As a member 

of the Secretary of the Army’s Office of 

Legislative Liaison, Colonel Bricker 

was responsible for advising Army senior leadership on legislative and congressional issues, as well as assisting 

Senators and our staff on Army matters. It is in this capacity that my 

Armed Services Committee staff and I 

have worked closely with Colonel 

Bricker. Throughout his tenure, he has 

consistently provided important technical expertise and useful insight on 

the issues, challenges and opportunities that face our soldiers and their 

families and has exemplified the highest level of professionalism. I also benefited from Colonel Bricker’s organizational diligence and military insights 

on a number of congressional delegation trips over the past year, including 

to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey and 

NATO. The success of these trips were 

due in large part to Colonel Bricker’s 

careful preparation and adaptability in 

making course corrections on the fly, 

often literally. 

Colonel Bricker has strong Michigan 

roots. He is a native of northern Michigan and a proud graduate of Michigan 

State University, where, upon graduation, he was commissioned as a second 

lieutenant of Aviation. Colonel Bricker 

has served in a variety of tactical and 

operational assignments from platoon 

to corps level in airborne, air assault, 

light infantry, and motorized units in 

the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq, 

and South Korea. He has commanded 

in combat with the 82nd Airborne Division at both the battalion and brigade 

level. Additionally, in 2007, he served as 

the 82nd Airborne Division’s Rear Detachment Commander, and from 2005– 

2006, as the Chief of Aviation for the 

Multi National Corps-Iraq. 

From 2008 to 2010, Colonel Bricker 

commanded the 82nd Airborne Division’s Combat Aviation Brigade and led 

them to war on short notice as part of 

the Afghanistan surge. He assumed nonotice responsibility for the DoD Consequence Management Response Force 

Aviation Brigade while simultaneously 

executing Department of the Army 

Pilot Reset. Once in Afghanistan, his 

brigade supported more than 40,000 coalition troops in Regional CommandSouth with lift, reconnaissance, 

MEDEVAC, and attack aviation. They 

executed the largest air assault in our 

nation’s history without error or incident, a testament to his exceptional 

leadership. Colonel Bricker’s brigade 

was commended by the ISAF Joint 

Command Deputy Commander for his 

exceptional maintenance and safety 

record under the most trying combat 

conditions. 

We know that our military personnel 

don’t shoulder the stress and sacrifice 

of military service alone, and Colonel 

Bricker is no exception. His wife, 

Katie, and their three children, Jacob, 

Jesse and Sophia, have proudly stood 

by his side, sacrificing time with their 

husband and father while he fulfills his 

military commitments. 

As he retires, Colonel Bricker leaves 

behind an impressive record of military 

service and his counsel, professionalism and expertise will surely be 

missed. Throughout his service to our 

Nation, Colonel Bricker has been a 

shining example for the people of 

Michigan and the United States, and 

for this, we offer him our heartfelt 

thanks. I know my colleagues join me 

in wishing Colonel Bricker and his family all the best as he begins the next 

chapter in his life. 

22ND ANNIVERSARY OF THE 

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES 

ACT 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, July 26, 

1990—22 years ago today was a great 

day in our Nation’s history. When 

President George Herbert Walker Bush 

signed the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, we could see the future before us, 

full of possibility and opportunity for 

people with disabilities. It was one of 

the proudest days of my legislative career. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act 

is one of the landmark civil rights laws 

of the 20th century—a long-overdue 

emancipation proclamation for Americans with disabilities. The ADA has 

played a huge role in making our country more accessible, in raising the expectations of people with disabilities 

about what they can hope to achieve at 

work and in life, and in inspiring the 

world to view disability issues through 

the lens of equality and opportunity. 

In these times, it is valuable to remember that passage of the original 

Americans with Disabilities Act was a 

robustly bipartisan effort. As chief 

sponsor of the ADA in the Senate, I 

worked very closely with Senator Bob 

Dole and others on both sides of the 

aisle. We received invaluable support 

from President George Herbert Walker 

Bush and key members of his administration, including White House Counsel 

Boyden Gray, Attorney General Dick 

Thornburgh, and Transportation Secretary Sam Skinner. Other Members of 

Congress also played critical roles in 

passing the ADA first and foremost, 

Senator Ted Kennedy; but also Senator 

ORRIN HATCH, and Representatives 

Tony Coelho, STENY HOYER, Major 

Owens, and Steve Bartlett. 

Before the ADA, life was very different for folks with disabilities in 

Iowa and across the country. Being an 

American with a disability meant not 

being able to ride on a bus because 

there was no lift, not being able to attend a concert or ball game because 

there was no accessible seating, and 

not being able to cross the street in a 

wheelchair because there were no curb 

cuts. In short, it meant not being able 

to work or participate in community 

life. Discrimination was both commonplace and accepted. 

Since then, we have seen amazing 

progress. The ADA literally transformed the American landscape by requiring that architectural and communications barriers be removed and replaced with accessible features such as 

ramps, lifts, curb cuts, widening doorways, and closed captioning. More importantly, the ADA gave millions of 

Americans the opportunity to participate in their communities. We have 

made substantial progress in advancing 

the four goals of the ADA—equality of 

opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. 

But despite this progress, we still 

have more work to do. Last month 

marked the 13th anniversary of the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE